Musk buys 9.2% stake in Twitter - Political thread.
- Thread starter Herdfan
- Start date
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
You could be right. All this could be in hopes that the stock gets near the $54 a share he is offering. Then he sells all his shares and drops the offer.
I think it‘s hilarious to see the right-wingers salivating over this. Do they not get that Musk is just one person, and if he takes Twitter private, he could do whatever he wants? Do they think Musk will turn it into some right-wing social media paradise? It’s really silly to hand the keys to a worldwide media platform to one person in the name of “free speech” as if they can trust Musk to uphold any ideals whatsoever.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Posts
- 4,788
- Reaction score
- 3,684
I would be happy with a neutral one.
How would Musk controlling Twitter being any different than the control Zuckerberg has over Facebook?
Is Twitter not neutral in your opinion? I‘m not a daily user, but do see jackasses of all political types in there.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
Two sentences… two replies.
1. The prior claim of left-wing bias was already debunked in a prior post.
2. Zuckerberg is CEO of Facebook. NOT owner. One answers to investors, the public, and a board. The other answers only to themselves. I think Zuck is trash and should be replaced, but people could stop buying stock and if the price tanked, the board would consider dumping him. If Musk owns Twitter as a private company, that’s another whole level of control.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Posts
- 4,788
- Reaction score
- 3,684
1) Posting JD's apology over one ban is not debunking their bias.
2) You might want to do some more research into the 2 shares classes at Facebook.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Posts
- 4,788
- Reaction score
- 3,684
Do you not see a problem when Trump is banned, but Putin is not? Want to ban Trump, fine. But other world leaders who have done way worse things still have active accounts.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
1. It is the only evidence of bias you’ve offered. Feel free to offer more.
2. There are many differences between a corporation and a privately held company. Hence, there would be a huge difference between a privately held Twitter and a publicly-traded one.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
Trump broke the rules. Repeatedly. He wasn’t kicked off because Twitter disliked his political party. The platform has rules. Break them, there are consequences. Trump just assumed they’d never actually do anything so he kept breaking the rules. Anybody else with his post history would have been banned years earlier.
You’re the one claiming it is a political thing. Feel free to provide evidence of political bias in Twitter’s enforcement of its rules. I look forward to reading it.
Last edited:
Putin doesn’t have a personal account. There is this, and it’s not very active.
Loading…
twitter.com
Trump puked harmful lies on Twitter multiple times a day for years.
Equally as stupid?
First of all, I’m not sure why Musk would have any interest in buying the barely profitable dumpster fire that is Twitter. There will never be a way to appease everyone and regardless of what Musk does, some cohort of people will be angry. It doesn’t seem worth it. And Musk could build his own platform for far less than $48B or whatever that I’m sure plenty of people would flock to.
If I was a Twitter investor (which I might be, in some mutual fund somewhere), I would take the $54 a share and run. I suspect the board will land itself in hot water if they refuse the offer since their sole job is act in the best interest of shareholders. And most analysts seem to think he gave them an offer too good to refuse.
Some in the media seem awfully concerned about Musk buying Twitter because then it will be owned and controlled outright by a billionaire. As if other media companies aren’t controlled by billionaires. As I recall Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. The Sulzberger family owns the NYT. The Murdochs own the WSJ, NY Post, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Times, much of Fox, and many, many others. As it stands Elon Musk has an absurd amount of power and influence not owning a social media platform.
From what I can tell, Elon Musk is not a right winger as he is now being branded. He strikes me as a libertarian.
I’ve always found him to be one of the most socially inept celebrities (making it ironic he wants a social media platform) and frankly I’m not a fan of him personally, but I don’t see why people are so concerned about this. I get the sense most with strong opinions for or against this are more concerned about who with what agenda yields “power” in society, Twitter obviously being a powerful platform.
If I was a Twitter investor (which I might be, in some mutual fund somewhere), I would take the $54 a share and run. I suspect the board will land itself in hot water if they refuse the offer since their sole job is act in the best interest of shareholders. And most analysts seem to think he gave them an offer too good to refuse.
Some in the media seem awfully concerned about Musk buying Twitter because then it will be owned and controlled outright by a billionaire. As if other media companies aren’t controlled by billionaires. As I recall Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. The Sulzberger family owns the NYT. The Murdochs own the WSJ, NY Post, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Times, much of Fox, and many, many others. As it stands Elon Musk has an absurd amount of power and influence not owning a social media platform.
From what I can tell, Elon Musk is not a right winger as he is now being branded. He strikes me as a libertarian.
I’ve always found him to be one of the most socially inept celebrities (making it ironic he wants a social media platform) and frankly I’m not a fan of him personally, but I don’t see why people are so concerned about this. I get the sense most with strong opinions for or against this are more concerned about who with what agenda yields “power” in society, Twitter obviously being a powerful platform.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Posts
- 4,788
- Reaction score
- 3,684
I am not sure if it is funny or sad, but one of the WaPo writers penned an opinion piece about how we can't let a billionaire control a media company. Do they not know who signs their paychecks?
Are they really that stupid or are they counting on the people being too stupid to realize it.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
Washington Post writers were not happy with the Bezos purchase. However, he has (so far) stayed out of the newsroom.
Musk, on the other hand, is making it clear he will be quite involved in changing things to suit his preferences.
I don’t like either guy owning such a platform, but the 2 situations are different.
Yoused
up
wrong thraed
Similar threads
